Re: Let's Just Pretend Vista Never Happened, Shall We?

Or...

You could look at it as further evidence of "Bloat ware". Microsoft forcing
more unnecessary, unneeded and un appreciated 'features' onto less than
impressed media wonks who will fault it anyway.

I still hold that the majority of problems that are ascribed to capital "V"
vista, are more the issue of foot dragging by peripherals vendors and lack
of responsible software/firmware upgrades by third parties.

The move from 16 bit Win95 to Win98/Win98SE was just as chaotic, roundly
criticized and resisted ... to the point that Win95 Sp were still being
developed all the way up to the delivery of XP/XP-Pro.

We listened to the same kind of complaints, except it was "why" do we need
32 drivers, when 16 bit was good enough?

Microsoft - the company that everyone Loves to Hate. And yet .... the wheels
on the Bus continue to go - round and round, all through the town. And quiet
as its kept, Unix, Linux and Apple are driven to greater heights - only -
because, there is a Microsoft to keep the pressure on!

"Spirnat of natt" <> wrote in message
news:490756ce$...
> http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_preview.asp
>
> Windows 7 Preview
> Part 1: Let's Just Pretend Vista Never Happened, Shall We?
>
> Well, let me ruin the surprise up front. Windows 7 is Windows Vista done
> right. If you're already a fan of Windows Vista, you'll love Windows 7
> because it's a better rendition of that earlier OS. If you're a Vista
> hater, take heart: The makers of Windows 7 have reevaluated virtually
> everything about Vista and made changes small and large across the board.
> The result is a better Windows, no matter how you slice it.
>
> I'd also like to address the most obvious question about Windows 7 before
> proceeding any further: Is Windows 7 a major or minor release? Microsoft
> emphatically claims that Windows 7 is indeed a major release and that we
> shouldn't be confused by the version number (6.1), the fact that the
> underlying core of the OS hasn't changed a whit since Windows Vista, and
> that the basic look and feel of the system is unchanged as well. Instead,
> they claim, the many usability changes they've implemented in Windows 7
> prove that this new OS is indeed a major release.
>
> My take on this is a bit more nuanced. Clearly, Windows 7 is to Windows
> Vista as was Windows XP to Windows 2000. And that's true on a number of
> levels. The version numbers point to little in the way of changes: Windows
> 7's 6.1 is comparable to XP's 5.1. In both cases, Windows 7, and XP, the
> system was essentially a highly tweaked version of its predecessor. And in
> both cases, the underlying core of the OS (the kernel plus support code)
> is largely unchanged from that of its predecessor. So from a technical
> standpoint, Windows 7 is a minor upgrade. From a usability standpoint,
> however, Windows 7--like XP--is a major upgrade, one that erases problems
> with its predecessor and brings with it a slew of new capabilities, most
> of which are quite welcome, and some of which are laugh out loud
> excellent. That's especially true for consumers, who are going to be quite
> pleased with what they see this time around.
>
> So I'm going to give Microsoft a pass on this one. Windows 7, in many
> ways, is indeed a major Windows release. And if you're an XP holdout, this
> is the version you've been waiting for. It's a better Windows than Vista.
> And that's saying something, because despite all the Vista detractors and
> libelous Apple advertisements, Vista is actually quite good. But yes,
> Windows 7 is better.

"Spirnat of natt" <> wrote in message
news:49078340$...
> people with deep understanding of technology have insight on what is "for
> the better" and "for the good of evolution"
> and what are huge blundering steps backwards.
>

That leaves you out. You could get an understanding of technology but by
the time you start to understand it, technology will be completely
different. Example: You start to understand Windows 98 - Bang. Windows
Vista is out.


> People who are smart know that there are 2 exceptions that should have
> never been made

Again, that leaves you out.
>
> and those are ONLY windowsMe and Vista
>
> all other changes and advancements were worthy of the problems they
> created and we techs never complained much.

You mean you spoke to a tech and he mentioned it to you. Remember your job
at Taco-Bell.
>
> Sure there are whiners who don't like change..

No - You're a weiner who doesn't like to change.
>
> People who love technology welcome change, and are ready to grab the new
> technology first, as long is it is for the better.

Your technology is deciding which soap to put in the bucket when you mop the
floor at Taco-Bell. Check with your manager, he or she just might surprise
you.


>
> Vista is not better, its ****. Windows7 is the vista that should have
> been...
>

Sorry - Vista is way over your head. You first need to comprehend DOS. Get
back to us in 5 years.

In article <06A5DACA-C116-45CD-A027->,
Beoweolf <> wrote:
>
>The move from 16 bit Win95 to Win98/Win98SE was just as chaotic, roundly

No, it wasn't. 98 was a major and much appreciated upgrade to
95, and what's more very very few 95 applications wouldn't run in 98. Most
machines that ran 95 would comfortably run 98, and the upgrade procedure
actually worked.

Maybe you were trapped in an alternate universe during those months?

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:27:54 -0700, "Beoweolf"
<> wrote:

>You could look at it as further evidence of "Bloat ware". Microsoft forcing
>more unnecessary, unneeded and un appreciated 'features' onto less than
>impressed media wonks who will fault it anyway.

.... and most expectedly "less than impressed users". The only ones
impressed by the "feature"changes in Vista (vs XP) are the dumbed down
dolts who match its dumbed down interface. There are no feature
changes that experienced users need or want. In fact, there are many
missing features from XP that experienced users miss.

>I still hold that the majority of problems that are ascribed to capital "V"
>vista, are more the issue of foot dragging by peripherals vendors and lack
>of responsible software/firmware upgrades by third parties.

You're only speaking to the compatibility issues. There are plenty of
other Vista issues that make it a definite loser. I expect Win7 will
be more of the same.

> The only ones
> impressed by the "feature"changes in Vista (vs XP) are the dumbed down
> dolts who match its dumbed down interface.

You can't be serious. Do you seriously think XP wasn't the ultimate in
dumbing down? The hideous Fisher Price colour scheme? The patronising "My"
in front of everything? The appalling sound scheme with stupid giggling
children, trumpet fanfares and robotic burps?

In comparison to that abortion, Vista is a model of sophistication.

STeveT

OK, Sherman ... lets fire up the "Way back" machine, see if we can find a
few moldy oldies.

.....Well, I managed to install win98 (first edition) onto the nForce system,
AGP8X is fine (at least the video card thinks so) and my one use of USB (a
joystick) works... but god it ruined 24 hours of my life... and it was not
because of the nForce2... my freaking ancient SbLive was a nightmare... I'd
install the drivers, then it would go auto detecting Sb16 emulation...
freaking locked the system every time... only way to get it to cooperate was
to physically remove the card, make a mess by deleting by hand the drivers..
put the card back in... oh well.. it works now (but in the device manager,
SB16 emulation is set to disabled) now my new trouble: I don't think the
hard drive controller are taking advantage of the fancy speed of the IDE's
stuff... I did install the nVidia driver (without sound and LAN, since the
motherboard asus....

Not to mention the monthly/weekly Updates to DUN and propagation of USB
versions, very little vendor standardization.

Yes it ran on the same machines as 95.... but ran much better with better,
faster memory (32 bit) and faster processor on new M/B. 386 was OK, but
486/66 was much better. Sound familiar?

"the wharf rat" <> wrote in message
news:ge88q6$5n1$...
> In article <06A5DACA-C116-45CD-A027->,
> Beoweolf <> wrote:
>>
>>The move from 16 bit Win95 to Win98/Win98SE was just as chaotic, roundly
>
> No, it wasn't. 98 was a major and much appreciated upgrade to
> 95, and what's more very very few 95 applications wouldn't run in 98. Most
> machines that ran 95 would comfortably run 98, and the upgrade procedure
> actually worked.
>
> Maybe you were trapped in an alternate universe during those months?
>

"Steve Thackery" <> wrote in message
news:OZTGG$...
>> The only ones
>> impressed by the "feature"changes in Vista (vs XP) are the dumbed down
>> dolts who match its dumbed down interface.
>
> You can't be serious. Do you seriously think XP wasn't the ultimate in
> dumbing down? The hideous Fisher Price colour scheme? The patronising
> "My" in front of everything? The appalling sound scheme with stupid
> giggling children, trumpet fanfares and robotic burps?
>
> In comparison to that abortion, Vista is a model of sophistication.
>
> STeveT

Vista may be hoity toity, but what does it actually DO BETTER?
I haven't found anything worth mentioning.

"+Bob+" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:27:54 -0700, "Beoweolf"
> <> wrote:
>
>>You could look at it as further evidence of "Bloat ware". Microsoft
>>forcing
>>more unnecessary, unneeded and un appreciated 'features' onto less than
>>impressed media wonks who will fault it anyway.
>
> ... and most expectedly "less than impressed users". The only ones
> impressed by the "feature"changes in Vista (vs XP) are the dumbed down
> dolts who match its dumbed down interface. There are no feature
> changes that experienced users need or want.

This last statement is pure stupidity. Sure there are...and I am way more
experienced than you.

"NotEvenMe" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Steve Thackery" <> wrote in message
> news:OZTGG$...
>>> The only ones
>>> impressed by the "feature"changes in Vista (vs XP) are the dumbed down
>>> dolts who match its dumbed down interface.
>>
>> You can't be serious. Do you seriously think XP wasn't the ultimate in
>> dumbing down? The hideous Fisher Price colour scheme? The patronising
>> "My" in front of everything? The appalling sound scheme with stupid
>> giggling children, trumpet fanfares and robotic burps?
>>
>> In comparison to that abortion, Vista is a model of sophistication.
>>
>> STeveT
>
> Vista may be hoity toity, but what does it actually DO BETTER?
> I haven't found anything worth mentioning.
>

If you think the touch aspects are worthless, you are going to be way left
behind. For visual, graphics, and other work the use of touchscreens
releases one from the tyranny of the keyboard and mouse.

In article <elgGd$>,
Beoweolf <beoweolf@<spamalot> wrote:
>OK, Sherman ... lets fire up the "Way back" machine, see if we can find a
>few moldy oldies.
>
>....Well, I managed to install win98 (first edition) onto the nForce system,
>AGP8X is fine (at least the video card thinks so) and my one use of USB (a
>joystick) works... but god it ruined 24 hours of my life... and it was not
>because of the nForce2... my freaking ancient SbLive was a nightmare... I'd

Lol, he wasn't installing 98 when it was first released. Nforce2
dates from what, 2002? Not surprised he had trouble installing obsolete
OS's on brand new chipsets. Come on, if 98 was such a PIA how come the
only complaint you can find is from some hoser in 2002 too cheap to
spring for XP?

>Yes it ran on the same machines as 95.... but ran much better with better,
>faster memory (32 bit) and faster processor on new M/B. 386 was OK, but
>486/66 was much better. Sound familiar?

No. Nobody upgraded 386's to 98. The typical office machine at
that time was in the P200 class.